SirWilliam Posted January 18, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 Supreme, that may be just about the greatest thing I've ever read. (That I recall.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalap Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 2 hours ago, YOLO SWAG said: You took hakai's bait. We know you like the idea of using your strength to bully your way into war against me and Kashmir. It's a shame you don't see the irony of claiming to have the moral high ground here. I have repeatedly stated that I appreciate and respect Kashmir leadership handling of this situation, those statements were sincere. I have repeatedly stated that both alliances did what they had to do. From your perspective, of course you can question our motives, and of course from our perspective we can question your actions. Yes, I would have taken a more cautious path if you were member of a larger alliance. I'm a player and I do look at the cards on the table & in my hand to decide on the story I'll try to tell. Surely y'all are players too and would do exactly the same. Have I been a shark looking to max out my hand? I do that at the poker table, I think I'm not doing that over here. A balanced settlement is all I want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphine Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 So has peace been agreed to or what? Cause Im getting impatient Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, jalap said: Yes, I would have taken a more cautious path if you were member of a larger alliance. [...] A balanced settlement is all I want. That's a very contradictory. As you can't on one hand say, if you were bigger we wouldn't have tried anything, and on the other say, a balanced peace is what we want. You are using your larger national strength to force a settlement in your favor, or you wouldn't have attacked. You can't have a balanced settlement when you're holding a gun to someones head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalap Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 18 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said: You are using your larger national strength to force a settlement in your favor, or you wouldn't have attacked. You can't have a balanced settlement when you're holding a gun to someones head. If a settlement will be announced, it will be balanced and fair. Both from MHA and Kashmir perspective. That's the goal both leaders are rightfully aiming for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 hour ago, jalap said: If a settlement will be announced, it will be balanced and fair. Both from MHA and Kashmir perspective. That's the goal both leaders are rightfully aiming for. I'm sorry, you must be confused. Because you're acting like you never attacked an alliance 3-4x smaller than you (while negotiating), in no universe is that balanced, and fair. If they don't reach an agreement you deem "balanced and fair" you will continue to use your superior strength to push what you consider balanced and fair. Unless you're saying that if you don't come to a balance, and fair agreement you will only fight these wars, and no more? If that's true, I'll apologize. Until then you have moved into the realm of strong arming a smaller alliance to capitulate to what you deem balance, and fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hershey Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 I'm sensing some form of a pattern... For those who do not understand the comic above, please go to this link for the reference: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banned Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Lord Hershey said: I'm sensing some form of a pattern... For those who do not understand the comic above, please go to this link for the reference: Comic gold, the hershey standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor Jason Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Omg, ths might be ur best wrk yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted January 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Pack it in, folks, an amicable resolution has been reached between Kashmir and MHA. Sorry to disappoint. Roal, go suck a lemon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roal36 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 45 minutes ago, SirWilliam said: Pack it in, folks, an amicable resolution has been reached between Kashmir and MHA. Sorry to disappoint. Roal, go suck a lemon. Special mention from Sir William again this time direct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBilly1 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 9 hours ago, berbers said: Omg did you not learn your lesson? Do I need to spank you again? I might as well use this medium to issue the following Proclamation: Helheim declares war on MHA in defense of the awesome Kush bros. Yeah..... I don't see you doing a whole lot, not even worth tech raiding you, but B- for effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterchief777 Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Happy to see this resolved. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Congrats on peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 46 minutes ago, KingBilly1 said: Yeah..... I don't see you doing a whole lot, not even worth tech raiding you, but B- for effort. Lol, well said KingBilly1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Maybe the peace involves wars being fought until expiration, but generally I would say an "amicable resolution" is not accompanied by an exchange of nuclear fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 14 hours ago, jalap said: CN would be in a permanent state of war if everybody followed that logic. You say this like it would be a bad thing. Bah, at this rate my warchest will never run out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 8 hours ago, SirWilliam said: Sorry to disappoint. I am disappoint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 13 hours ago, jalap said: If a settlement will be announced, it will be balanced and fair. Both from MHA and Kashmir perspective. That's the goal both leaders are rightfully aiming for. Unlikely, since you're negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength and you were, in fact, the aggressor. But I'll be happy to wave a paper flag and shout 'Huzzah!' if it means there's one less thin-skinned fop White Knight-ing and making threats when his sensitive widdle feewings get hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 16 hours ago, Alonso Quixano said: You can't have a balanced settlement when you're holding a gun to someones head. Just a nit but it's my experience that that's exactly what one usually needs in order to get a balanced settlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Sigrun Vapneir said: Just a nit but it's my experience that that's exactly what one usually needs in order to get a balanced settlement. Balanced to whom? The one with the more strength? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 I'm just saying, a kind word and a gun works a lot better than a kind word alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOLO SWAG Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, Sigrun Vapneir said: I'm just saying, a kind word and a gun works a lot better than a kind word alone. Keep your pseudo-philosophical musings out of this thread about tangible-cyber-things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 19 minutes ago, Sigrun Vapneir said: I'm just saying, a kind word and a gun works a lot better than a kind word alone. What I am getting at is. If you bring a knife to a gun fight, you send a warning shot at the person, and then decide to talk about a fair/balanced solution; it's not balanced or fair to the other party. It may work better, and I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that it can't by the very definition be balanced, and fair when someone is lording more strength/nukes over you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 45 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said: What I am getting at is. If you bring a knife to a gun fight, you send a warning shot at the person, and then decide to talk about a fair/balanced solution; it's not balanced or fair to the other party. It may work better, and I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that it can't by the very definition be balanced, and fair when someone is lording more strength/nukes over you. If you bring a knife to a gun fight and send a warning shot with it you're better with a knife than I am. Seriously, I find that people are much more serious about negotiating when there is a (metaphorical) gun to their head. In fact probably the quickest way to produce a fair and balanced peace treaty is to put a gun to both parties heads simultaneously. If there is no such motivation, many people will simply waste your time with mockery rather than negotiating in earnest. And I disagree with the notion that the circumstances make the outcome inherently unbalanced. The balance of the outcome is not dependent on the way it is arrived at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.